“Ridiculous claims—like the science is settled or the debate is over—triggered a growing realization that something was wrong.” When the global warming advocates began to tell people that cooling is caused by warming, the public has realized how absurd the entire UN climate change argument has been.

Worse, however, has been “the deliberate deceptions, misinformation, manipulation of records and misapplying scientific method and research” to pursue a political objective. Much of this is clearly unlawful, but it is unlikely that any of those who perpetrated the hoax will ever be punished and, in the case of Al Gore and the IPCC, they shared a Nobel Peace Prize!

We are all in debt to Dr. Ball and a score of his fellow scientists who exposed the lies and debunked the hoax; their numbers are growing with thousands of scientists signing petitions and participating in international conferences to expose this massive global deception.

The cultist will no doubt have their fingers in their ears shouting their usual bilge. Rise above that fence sitters.

The bilge is what is quoted from industry think tank blogs rather than real scientific publications. A published for profit book is targeting an audience which will pay to read, generally what they want to hear rather than the science published in journals because that is what the data says.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

It is NOT a "cult" to see the effects and be backed by scientific consensus, along with a good education in a number of sciences and math subjects.More to the definition of cult would be denialists who resort to using old reports and other BS to continue an argument won long ago.THIS is more important, from my "How to mitigate CC" thread; viewtopic.php?f=3&t=24584

>>>>"It would take an act of phenomenal legerdemain to conceal the fact that climate change - or rather >>the failure to act on climate change when it was still largely preventable<< - is the greatest security failure in human history. Despite more than >>25 years of explicit warnings from the world's best climate scientists<<, the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) being pumped into the atmosphere continues to rise. In fact, >>60 percent of the total has been dumped there since the danger was known.<<"<<<<<<

(1) We're already feeling the impacts of climate change. Glaciers are already shrinking, changing the courses of rivers and altering water supplies downstream. Species from grizzly bears to flowers have shifted their ranges and behavior. Wheat and maize yields may have dropped. But as climate impacts become more common and tangible, they're being matched by an increasing global effort to learn how to live with them: The number of scientific studies on climate change impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation more than doubled between 2005, before the previous IPCC report, and 2010. Scientists and policymakers are "learning through doing, and evaluating what you've done," said report contributor Kirstin Dow, a climate policy researcher at the University of South Carolina. "That's one of the most important lessons to come out of here."(2) Heat waves and wildfires are major threats in North America. Europe faces freshwater shortages, and Asia can expect more severe flooding from extreme storms. In North America, major threats include heat waves and wildfires, which can cause death and damage to ecosystems and property. The report names athletes and outdoor workers as particularly at risk from heat-related illnesses. As the graphic below shows, coastal flooding is also a key concern. risks chart James West/Climate Desk(3) Globally, food sources will become unpredictable, even as population booms. Especially in poor countries, diminished crop production will likely lead to increased malnutrition, which already affects nearly 900 million people worldwide. Some of the world's most important staples—maize, wheat, and rice—are at risk. The ocean will also be a less reliable source of food, with important fish resources in the tropics either moving north or going extinct, while ocean acidification eats away at shelled critters (like oysters) and coral. Shrinking supplies and rising prices will cause food insecurity, which can exacerbate preexisting social tensions and lead to conflict. (4) Coastal communities will increasingly get hammered by flooding and erosion. Tides are already rising in the US and around the world. As polar ice continues to melt and warm water expands, sea level rise will expose major metropolitan areas, military installations, farming regions, small island nations, and other ocean-side places to increased damage from hurricanes and other extreme storms. Sea level rise brings with it risks of "death, injury, ill-health, or disrupted livelihoods," the report says.(5) We'll see an increase in climate refugees and, possibly, climate-related violence. The report warns that both extreme weather events and longer-term changes in climate can lead to the displacement of vulnerable populations, especially in developing parts of the world. Climate change might also "indirectly increase" the risks of civil wars and international conflicts by exacerbating poverty and competition for resources.(6) Climate change is expected to make people less healthy. According to the report, we can expect climate change to have a negative impact on health in many parts of the world, especially poorer countries. Why? Heat waves and fires will cause injury, disease and death. Decreased food production will mean more malnutrition. And food- and water-borne diseases will make more people sick.(7) We don't know how much adaptation is going to cost. The damage we're doing to the planet means that human beings are going to have to adapt to the changing climate. But that costs money. Unfortunately, studies that estimate the global cost of climate adaptation "are characterized by shortcomings in data, methods, and coverage," according to the IPCC. But from the "limited evidence" available, the report warns that there's a "gap" between "global adaptation needs and the funds available." (8) There's still time to reduce the impacts of global warming...if we cut our emissions. Here's the good news: The IPCC says that the impacts of climate change—and the costs of adaptation—will be "reduced substantially" if we cut our emissions of greenhouse gases."I sure wish some so-called fence sitters would pipe in. So far-----NONE!!!The Last Hours of Humanity: Warming the World to Extinction http://lasthours.org/Climate imbalance – disparity in the quality of research by contrarian and mainstream climate scientistsPosted on 11 April 2014 by dana1981

A new paper has been published in the journal Cosmopolis entitled Review of the consensus and asymmetric quality of research on human-induced climate change. The paper was authored by John Abraham, myself, John Cook, John Fasullo, Peter Jacobs, and Scott Mandia. Each of the authors has experience in publishing peer-reviewed responses to flawed contrarian papers.http://www.skepticalscience.com/abraham ... polis.html

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Ministers who question the majority view among scientists about climate change should “shut up” and instead repeat the Government line on the issue, according to MPs.

The BBC should also give less airtime to climate sceptics and its editors should seek special clearance to interview them, according to the Commons Science and Technology Committee. Andrew Miller, the committee’s Labour chairman, said that appearances on radio and television by climate sceptics such as Lord Lawson of blaby, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer should be accompanied by "health warnings."

What do you think fence sitters. Is it wise for a government to cut one side of any debate out?

Ministers who question the majority view among scientists about climate change should “shut up” and instead repeat the Government line on the issue, according to MPs.

The BBC should also give less airtime to climate sceptics and its editors should seek special clearance to interview them, according to the Commons Science and Technology Committee. Andrew Miller, the committee’s Labour chairman, said that appearances on radio and television by climate sceptics such as Lord Lawson of blaby, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer should be accompanied by "health warnings."

What do you think fence sitters. Is it wise for a government to cut one side of any debate out?

Of course it is. The attempt to confuse people by false implication of there being two equal sides in such a discussion is counterproductive. Otherwise we should have the flat Earth Society given equal footing as NASA, Creationists given equal footing as all of the life sciences and evolution, and Pi established as "3" as an equal alternative. Science is not a political debate as much as some of the conservative politicians would like for us to believe.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

The summary for policymakers alone is 44 pages and the full report contains 1,552, so it's necessary to be rather brief in this initial report on the newly-released documents. Later analysis is the place to go deeper. Let's start with the summary's assessment of the “observed impacts, vulnerability and adaptation” to climate change.

Confidence level Observed phenomenon resulting from climate change

Very High Differences in vulnerability and exposure arise from non-climatic factors and from multidimensional inequalities often produced by uneven development processes

Very High Impacts from recent climate-related extremes, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones, and wildfires, reveal significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to current climate variability

High Adaptation and mitigation choices in the near-term will affect the risks of climate change throughout the 21st century

High Adaptation experience is accumulating across regions in the public and private sector and within communities

High Adaptation is becoming embedded in some planning processes, with more limited implementation of responses

High Based on many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops, negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts

High Climate-related hazards exacerbate other stressors, often with negative outcomes for livelihoods, especially for people living in poverty

High Many terrestrial, freshwater, and marine species have shifted their geographic ranges, seasonal activities, migration patterns, abundances, and species interactions in response to ongoing climate change

High Responding to climate-related risks involves decision-making in a changing world, with continuing uncertainty about the severity and timing of climate-change impacts and with limits to the effectiveness of adaptation

High Uncertainties about future vulnerability, exposure, and responses of interlinked human and natural systems are large

Medium In many regions, changing precipitation or melting snow and ice are altering hydrological systems, affecting water resources in terms of quantity and quality

The summary then presents the following eight “key risks” that the IPCC feels “are identified with high confidence, span sectors and regions.”

The risks are:

Risk of death, injury, ill-health, or disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states and other small islands, due to storm surges, coastal flooding, and sea-level rise

Risk of severe ill-health and disrupted livelihoods for large urban populations due to inland flooding in some regions.Systemic risks due to extreme weather events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services such as electricity, water supply, and health and emergency services

Risk of mortality and morbidity during periods of extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable urban populations and those working outdoors in urban or rural areas.

Risk of food insecurity and the breakdown of food systems linked to warming, drought, flooding, and precipitation variability and extremes, particularly for poorer populations in urban and rural settings.

Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.

Risk of loss of marine and coastal ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.

Risk of loss of terrestrial and inland water ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for livelihoods.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

A new peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, titled “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements”, is openly providing a “rationale” for global warming proponents to engage in mendacious claims in order to further their cause.

The paper appears to support or provide a formula for why lying or “information manipulation” is able to further the cause of man-made global warming and “enhance global welfare.” The authors use a mathematical formula to study information tactics.

The authors, Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, note how the media and environmental groups “exaggerate” global warming and then the offer their paper to “provide a rationale for this tendency” to exaggerate for the good of the cause.

The abstract from the peer reviewed paper.

Quote:

“It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex anteperspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.”

A new peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, titled “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements”, is openly providing a “rationale” for global warming proponents to engage in mendacious claims in order to further their cause.

The paper appears to support or provide a formula for why lying or “information manipulation” is able to further the cause of man-made global warming and “enhance global welfare.” The authors use a mathematical formula to study information tactics.

The authors, Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, note how the media and environmental groups “exaggerate” global warming and then the offer their paper to “provide a rationale for this tendency” to exaggerate for the good of the cause.

The abstract from the peer reviewed paper.

Quote:

“It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex anteperspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.”

This is not science fence sitters. None of it is.

I agree the interpretation of the paper by Climate Depot is far from science, but that is not new either. Too much of the "skeptical science" involves such intrpretation and assigning views to authors which are based on the biases held by the people who do not publish anything in any scientific publication.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

The National Science Foundation has fantasies of Broadway. It is funding what it thinks is a hot commodity: a new musical titledThe Great Immensity that is focused on climate change at the cost of $700,000 to taxpayers. NSF musicalThe website for the production reads:

In a thrilling and timely production, presented in association with the celebrated investigative theater company, The Civilians, The Great Immensity is a continent-hopping thriller following a woman, Phyllis, as she pursues someone close to her who disappeared from a tropical island while on an assignment for a nature show.

But this is science, so how about the hard data that undergirds the plot? Not to worry:

The Great Immensity explores the environmental crisis drawing upon research and interviews conducted in two distinct locations: Barro Colorado Island (BCI) in the Panama Canal and the city of Churchill in arctic Canada.

Just in case your curiosity is piqued and you have your own tale of climate change disaster to tell, the website wants you to get involved:

The characters from the play are here to share with you the latest in environmental art, science, and action, and to demonstrate how people around the world are having a positive impact on the big issues that we are facing. Now is the time to get involved in shaping the next fifty or one hundred years of life on this planet. Click HERE to learn more and find out what you can do!

According to Professor Frank, stopping global warming may require carbon taxes of about $300 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted, and by implementing such taxes, we can also balance the federal budget. “If such a tax were phased in,” Frank says, “the prices of goods would rise gradually in proportion to the amount of carbon dioxide their production or use entailed. The price of gasoline, for example, would slowly rise by somewhat less than $3 per gallon. Motorists in many countries already pay that much more than Americans do, and they seem to have adapted by driving substantially more efficient vehicles. . . . many budget experts agree that federal budgets simply can’t be balanced with spending cuts alone. We’ll also need substantial additional revenue, most of which could be generated by a carbon tax.”

In addition to increasing the cost of American goods through carbon taxes, Frank recommends jacking up the price of imports through carbon tariffs, and he suggests that the U.S. government use such tariffs to force other nations to impose carbon taxes on their own citizens. “Some people argue that a carbon tax would do little good unless it were also adopted by China and other big polluters,” Frank says. “It’s a fair point. But access to the American market is a potent bargaining chip. The United States could seek approval to tax imported goods in proportion to their carbon dioxide emissions if exporting countries failed to enact carbon taxes at home.”

Quote:

Divided evenly among 300 million Americans, the green tax works out to a burden of $9,270 imposed on every man, woman, and child. While this would be a pittance for the most affluent Americans, it would take away 40 percent of the total income of a family of four supported by two wage earners making the average U.S. salary of $45,000 each, and it would be a virtually fatal burden for the poor.

The Obama campaign is currently banging the class-warfare drum, demanding that taxes on those making over $250,000 a year be raised by about 4 percent. Assuming no ill effects on the economy, this measure would raise $80 billion in revenue for the federal government, which conceivably might use as much as half of it, or $40 billion, in various programs that transfer part of their funds to lower-income people. “He pays less. You pay more,” say the president’s ads, promising largesse to the masses from the pockets of the rich. At the same time, however, green ideologues on whose ideas Obama’s energy policies are based are putting forth a proposal that would double the tax burden on the lower-earning 95 percent of the American public, with the poorest 50 percent being hit for a full $1.3 trillion of the increase.

But that’s not all. Because the green tax targets carbon, rather than income, it would act as a dirigiste economic policy favoring businesses that make money trading in paper instruments over those that produce real value through industry, agriculture, transport, mining, and construction. This would impoverish society overall, once again hurting the vulnerable the most, and would destroy tens of millions of blue-collar jobs.

Was ever a more regressive tax policy proposed? And has anyone ever demanded that the United States launch a trade war to force other countries to impose such oppressive policies on their own people, most of whom can afford them even less? There was a time when the Democratic party concerned itself with the needs of poor and working people. Alas, those times are past.

The green tax plan is a declaration of war on the poor.

Let me repeat. The green tax plan is a declaration of war on the poor.

BAIT AND SWITCH , that's all you're good for....... I see you are no good at simple math, either. You think there are imaginary people who are on a fence with AGW. Are you the same way with overpopulation?

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Fence sitters this is the future if the cultists get their way. A bleak future.

Let me repeat. The green tax plan is a declaration of war on the poor.

Because if you repeat a "Big Lie" often enough it will take on the appearance of being the truth, right? Just like the Big Lie that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet, for example. The politicians are good at repeating lies and Milton claims he does not know of which he speaks so he is just repeating what is said .... by politicians.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Science is rife with corruption, incompetence, dishonesty and fabrication--and now, thanks to a frank resignation letter by the US's top scientific misconduct official we have a better idea why.

David E. Wright, a respected science historian, has just quit his job as director of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI; part of the Department of Health and Human Services) and is scathing about his experiences there.lab test

In his resignation letter, he accuses his boss HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Howard Koh of running an organization which is "secretive, autocratic and unaccountable."

Quote:

One example can be found in this letter from Senator Charles “Chuck” Grassley (R-IA) to the ORI about the case of an AIDS researcher at Iowa State University who faked data to obtain nearly $19 million in NIH grant money. The ORI banned the researcher from receiving grants for three years but has apparently made no attempt to recoup the missing $19 million.

This kind of skullduggery is especially prevalent in the fields of "climate science" and environmentalism because so much government, European Union, and United Nations money has been pumped into these fashionable areas of concern.

At UC Berkeley, a researcher named Tyrone Hayes has built a highly successful career on promoting the "endocrine disruptor" scare--doing enormous harm to the US agricultural industry--despite no other scientist having been able to replicate his research.

Or consider the nonsense widely promulgated about the Costa Rican golden toad--a species whose disappearance alarmist scientists frequently ascribe to "climate change," despite overwhelming evidence that it perished as a result of a fungus unconnected with "global warming."

Quote:

But few branches of science are immune, as this infographic from Clinicalpsychology.net makes clear.

Among its findings:

1 in 3 scientists admits to using questionable research practices

1 in 50 scientists admits to falsifying or fabricating data outright.

71 percent of scientists report that colleagues have used questionable methods

14 percent claim colleagues have falsified data

Among biomedical research trainees at the University of California, San Diego five percent admitted to modifying results and 81 percent said they would fabricate or modify results to win a grant or publish a paper.

And those are just the ones who'll admit it....

There's you tax dollars at work in the scientific community fence sitters. This really breeds trust doesn't it.

Richard Tol tweeted here a link to an article appearing at the Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten (German Business News) about the country’s much ballyhooed Energiewende, in English: transition to renewable energies. The title:

Leading economic experts are firing harsh criticism at the energy policy of federal super minister Sigmar Gabriel. Germany as a friendly location for business is not only being weakened, the transition to renewable energy even borders on suicide and is an unimaginably expensive folly.”

Recently Angela Merkel’s grand coalition government just decided they would water down the scale-back in renewable energy subsidies. The Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten quotes Max Planck Institute researcher Axel Börsch-Supan, who has fired harsh words at Federal Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel:

With their policy, the grand coalition is weakening Germany’s location as a place to do business. This is especially true when it comes to the Energiewende, which is bordering on suicide.”

According to the Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, other experts are also slamming Germany’s “Energiewende”. For example Ifo Institute director Hans-Werner Sinn calls it an “unimaginably expensive folly“. Marc Tüngler director of a German financial association, calls it “a planned economy without a plan” that makes the Energiewende “unbearably expensive“.

The Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten concludes:

According to experts, the big losers are the consumers, who will have to expect continued increasing electricity prices.

Once again its the little guy that takes it in the shorts in favor of green energy policies. Doesn't have to happen here.

I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines. You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios provided by the synthesis team.

If you want to do 'realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity analyses bracketing possible trajectories. We do not and cannot not and must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are ultimatley a political decision (except in the sense that reserves and resources provide an upper bound).

'Advice' will be based on a mix of different approaches that must reflect the fact that we do not have high coinfidence in GHG projections nor full confidence in climate ystem model projections of consequences.

Dave

Assumption? What if storylines? They don't have high confidence in GHG projections? Don't have full confidence in climate system model? This email points out what I have been saying for years. GIGO. Climate model research is a complete joke. But, CO2 trajectories are a "political decision." Something else I've been saying for years.